Whether the trademark "PLO Rophh Lumren" and the cited trademark "POLA" are similar.

Even if there are different parts between trademarks, it is similar to those which form the essential part, and it is easy to confuse them in the overall observation, so if compared with the trademark "POLO Ralphlae" and the cited trademark "POLA", the essential part of the original trademark is similar to that of the cited trademark "POLA" as a POLO and its name and appearance.

Article 9 of the Trademark Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Hu66 Delivered on February 28, 1984

Furthermore, Cambodian Patent Attorney Channn-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 721 decided May 29, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by a claimant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether or not a trademark is similar under the Trademark Act shall be determined by whether or not two trademarks used for the same kind of product are objectively, overall, or differently from three aspects of appearance, name, and concept, and whether or not there is a possibility of confusion or misunderstanding in trade. Even if there are different parts between the trademarks, the parts constituting the essential part are similar to those of the trademark, and thus, it is easy for consumers to confuse with the trademark in the overall observation. Therefore, in preparation for the POLO LPh Lren and the cited POLA, both are the same kind of product as the designated goods (cosmetic No. 12 of the product classification). The main part of the original trademark is the PLO, stating that it is a small letter under the above, and there is a difference between PLA and PLA, which is the cited trademark, and if there is a difference between the two trademarks, it is possible to confuse the two trademarks with the original trademark in terms of the trademark's appearance, which is an essential part of the trademark and the cited trademark's appearance, which is a trademark of the same kind of product.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the interpretation of the above trademark law as pointed out in the arguments, and there is no ground for misunderstanding against the rules of experience and the rules of evidence, and all the judicial precedents and trial decisions are not appropriate in this case because they are different facts.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)